Re: [John_Lit] Still on a "god" - the dividing line
> However, all the evidence seems to suggest thatYes! I quite agree with your observation here. And the reason
> in the period in which Philo, John and Justin wrote
> the Logos WAS the dividing line, merging into both
> sides and yet keeping them 'clearly' distinct. And so
> it is that Philo can describe the Logos as 'neither
> uncreated as God, nor created as you, but between the
> two extremes', while John puts it in terms of the Word
> being both 'God' and 'with God'.
I wanted to asked if John presented Jesus as "a YHWH" (not a god)
was based on this dividing line that John traverses. A god would
have clearly been (on or) "below" the Line, while YHWH was "above"
the only reason many have placed Jesus "below" this line it seems
is because John is approached with a Philonic limitation to the
LOGOS, one John essentially denies.
The reason the LOGOS (not Philo's logos, but John's LOGOS) was
PROS TON QEON (YHWH) is because John's LOGOS was "above" this line
(EN ARCHi), a radical concept in comparison to Philo. And to
distinguish himself from current thought on the logos, John
has "this" LOGOS bringing into existence PANTA, which would include,
at least possibly, Philo's subordinate logos.
The rigid Jewish Monotheism of that day, and today, could not
understand Jesus' claim to be "one" with YHWH (John 10). How John's
LOGOS was "above" this dividing line IN THE BEGINNING may seem
contradictory, unless we can understand in what sense Jesus says he
was "one" with God. On the LOGOS, John's departure from Philo seems
to me at least manifestly there, but more questions are raised than
Sugar Land, TX